LIBRARY 
OF  THE 

VtRSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


SPEECH 


03? 


William  J.  Bryan, 


Democratic  Nominee  for  President, 


DELIVERED  AT 


NOTIFICATION  MEETING, 


Madison  Square  Garden, 


New  York, 


AUGUST  12,  1896. 


Mr.  Chairman,  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee  and  Fellow-Citizens : 

I  shall,  at  a  future  day  and  in  a  formal  letter,  accept  the  nomination  which 
is  now  tendered  by  the  Notification  Committee,  and  I  shall  at  that  time 
touch  upon  the  issues  presented  by  the  platform.  It  is  fitting,  however,  that 
at  this  time,  in  the  presence  of  those  here  assembled,  I  speak  at  some  length 
in  regard  to  the  campaign  upon  which  we  are  now'  entering.  We  do  not 
underestimate  the  forces  arrayed  against  us,  nor  are  we  unmindful  of  the 
importance  of  the  struggle  in  which  we  are  engaged;  but,  relying  for 
success  upon  the  righteousness  of  our  cause,  we  shall  defend  with  all  pos¬ 
sible  vigor  the  positions  taken  by  our  party.  We  are  not  surprised  that 
some  of  our  opponents,  in  the  absence  of  better  argument,  resort  to  abusive 
epithets,  but  they  may  rest  assured  that  no  language,  however  violent,  no 
invectives,  however  vehement,  will  lead  us  to  depart  a  single  hair’s-breadth 
from  the  course  marked  out  by  the  National  Convention.  The  citizen,  either 
public  or  private,  who  assails  the  character  and  questions  the  patriotism 
of  the  delegates  assembled  in  the  Chicago  Convention,  assails  the  character 
and  questions  the  patriotism  of  the  millions  who  have  arrayed  themselves 
under  the  banner  there  raised. 

It  has  been  charged  by  men  standing  high  in  business  and  political  circles 
that  our  platform  is  a  menace  to  private  security  and  public  safety;  and  it 
has  been  asserted  that  those  whom  I  have  the  honor,  for  the  time  being, 
to  represent,  not  only  meditate  an  attack  upon  the  rights  of  property,  but  are 
the  foes  both  of  social  order  and  national  honor. 

Those  who  stand  upon  the  Chicago  platform' are  prepared  to  make  known 
and  to  defend  every  motive  which  influences  them,  every  purpose  which 
animates  them,  and  every  hope  wffiich  inspires  them.  They  understand  the 
genius  of  our  institutions,  they  are  staunch  supporters  of  the  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  under  which  we  live,  and  they  build  their  faith  upon  foundations 
laid  by  the  fathers.  Andrew  Jackson  has  stated,  with  admirable  clearness 
and  with  an  emphasis  which  cannot  be  surpassed,  both  the  duty  and  the 
sphere  of  government.  He  said:  “Distinctions  in  society  will  always 
exist  under  every  just  government.  Equality  of  talents,  of  education  or  of 
wealth  cannot  be  produced  by  human  institutions.  In  the  full  enjoyment  of 
the  gifts  of  Heaven  and  the  fruits  of  superior  industry,  economy  and  virtue, 
every  man  is  equally  entitled  to  protection  by  law.”  We  yield  to  none  in 
our  devotion  to  the  doctrine  just  enunciated-  Our  campaign  has  not  for  its 
object  the  reconstruction  of  society.  We  cannot  insure  to  the  vicious  the 
fruits  of  a  virtuous  life;  we  would  not  invade  the  home  of  the  provident 
in  order  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  spendthrift;  we  do  not  propose  to  transfer 
the  rewards  of  industry  to  the  lap  of  indolence.  Property  is  and  will  remain 
the  stimulus  to  endeavor  and  the  compensation  for  toil.  We  believe,  as 
asserted  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that  all  men  are  created  equal; 
but  that  does  not  mean  that  all  men  are  or  can  be  equal  in  possessions,  in 
ability  or  in  merit;  it  simply  means  that  all  shall  stand  equal  before  the  law, 
and  that  government  officials  shall  not,  in  making,  construing  or  enforcing 
the  law,  discriminate  between  citizens. 

I  assert  that  property  rights,  as  well  as  the  rights  of  persons,  are  safe  in 
the  hands  of  the  common  people.  Abraham  Lincoln,  in  his  message  sent 
to  Congress  in  December,  1861,  said:  “No  men  living  are  more  worthy  to  be 
trusted  than  those  who  toil  up  from  poverty;  none  less  inclined  to  take  or 
touch  aught  which  they  have  not  honestly  earned.”  I  repeat  his  language 
with  unqualified  approval,  and  join  with  him  in  the  warning  which  he 
added,  namely:  “Let  them  beware  of  surrendering  a  political  power  which 
they  already  possess,  and  which  power,  if  surrendered,  will  surely  be  used 
to  close  the  door*  of  advancement  against  such  as  they,  and  to  fix  new 
disabilities  and  burdens  upon  them,  till  all  of  liberty  shall  be  lost.”  Those 
who  daily  follow  the  injunction:  “In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat 
bread,”  are  now,  as  they  ever  have  been,  the  bulwark  of  law  and  order— the 
source  of  our  nation’s  greatness  in  time  of  peace,  and  its  surest  defenders 
in  time  of  war. 

But  I  have  only  read  a  part  of  Jackson’s  utterance— let  me  give  you  his 
conclusion:  “But  when  the  laws  undertake  to  add  to  those  natural  and  just 
advantages  artificial  distinctions— to  grant  titles,  gratuities  and  exclusive 
privileges— to  make  the  rich  richer  and  the  potent  more  powerful— the  humble 
members  of  society— the  farmers,  mechanics  and  the  laborers— who  have 
neither  the  time  nor  the  means  of  securing  like  favors  for  themselves,  have 


4 


a  right  to  complain  of  the  injustice  of  their  government.”  Those  who  support 
the  Chicago  platform  indorse  all  of  the  quotation  from  Jackson— the  latter 
part  as  well  as  the  former  part. 

We  are  not  surprised  to  find  arrayed  against  us  those  who  are  the  bene¬ 
ficiaries  of  Government  favoritism— they  have  read  our  platform.  Nor  are 
we  surprised  to  learn  that  we  must  in  this  campaign  face  the  hostility  of 
those  who  find  a  pecuniary  advantage  in  advocating  the  doctrine  of  non¬ 
interference  when  great  aggregations  of  wealth  are  trespassing  upon  the 
rights  of  individuals.  We  welcome  such  opposition— it  is  the  highest  indorse¬ 
ment  which  could  be  bestowed  upon  us.  We  are  content  to  have  the  co¬ 
operation  of  those  who  desire  to  have  the  Government  administered  without 
fear  or  favor.  It  is  not  the  wish  of  the  general  public  that  trusts  should 
spring  into  existence  and  override  the  weaker  members  of  society;  it  is  not 
the  wish  of  the  general  public  that  these  trusts  should  destroy  competition 
and  then  collect  such  tax  as  they  will  from  those  who  are  at  their  mercy; 
nor  is  it  the  fault  of  the  general  public  that  the  instrumentalities  of  govern¬ 
ment  have  been  so  often  prostituted  to  purposes  of  private  gain.  Those 
who  stand  upon  the  Chicago  platform  believe  that  the  Government  should 
not  only  avoid  wrongdoing,  but  that  it  should  also  prevent  wrongdoing,  and 
they  believe  that  the  law  should  be  enforced  alike  against  all  enemies  of 
the  public  weal.  They  do  not  excuse  petit  larceny,  but  they  declare  that 
grand  larceny  is  equally  a  crime;  they  do  not  defend  the  occupation  of  the 
highwayman  who  robs  the  unsuspecting  traveler,  but  they  include  among  the 
transgressors  those  who,  through  the  more  polite  and  less  hazardous  means 
of  legislation,  appropriate  to  their  own  use  the  proceeds  of  the  toil  of  others. 
The  commandment:  “Thou  shalt  not  steal,”  thundered  from  Sinai  and  reit¬ 
erated  in  the  legislation  of  all  nations,  is  no  respecter  of  persons.  It  must 
be  applied  to  the  great  as  well  as  to  the  small;  to  the  strong  as  well  as 
the  weak;  to  the  corporate  person  created  by  law  as  well  as  to  the  person 
or  flesh  and  blood  created  by  the  Almighty.  No  government  is  worthy  of 
the  name  which  is  not  able  to  protect  from  every  arm  uplifted  for  his 
injury  the  humblest  citizen  who  lives  beneath  the  flag.  It  follows  as  a  neces¬ 
sary  conclusion  that  vicious  legislation  must  be  remedied  by  the  people 
who  suffer  from  the  effects  of  such  legislation,  and  not  by  those  who  enjoy 
its  benefits. 

The  Chicago  platform  has  been  condemned  by  some,  because  it  dissents 
from  an  opinion  rendered  by  the  Supreme  Court  declaring  the  income  tax 
lawr  unconstitutional.  Our  critics  even  go  so  far  as  to  apply  the  name 
Anarchist  to  those  wdio  stand  upon  that  plank  of  the  platform.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  we  expressly  recognize  the  binding  force  of  that  decision 
so  long  as  it  stands  as  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  There  is  in  the  plat¬ 
form  no  suggestion  of  an  attempt  to  dispute  the  authority  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  The  party  is  simply  pledged  to  use  “all  the  constitutional  power  which 
Temains  after  that  decision,  or  which  may  come  from  its  reversal  by  the 
Court  as  it  may  hereafter  be  constituted.”  Is  there  any  disloyalty  in  that 
pledge?  For  a  hundred  years  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has 
sustained  the  principle  which  underlies  the  income  tax.  Some  twenty  years 
ago  this  same  court  sustained  without  a  dissenting  voice'  an  income  tax  law 
almost  identical  with  the  one  recently  overthrown;  has  not  a  future  court 
as  much  right  to  return  to  the  judicial  precedents  of  a  century  as  the  present 
court  had  to  depart  from  them  ?  When  courts  allow  rehearings  they  admit 
that  error  is  possible;  the  late  decision  against  the  income  tax  was  rendered 
by  a  majority  of  one  after  a  rehearing. 

While  the  money  question  overshadows  all  other  questions  in  importance, 
I  desire  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  shall  offer  no  apology  for  the  income 
tax  plank  of  the  Chicago  platform.  The  last  income  tax  law  sought  to 
apportion  the  burdens  of  government  more  equitably  among  those  who  enjoy 
the  protection  of  the  Government.  At  present  the  expenses  of  the  Federal 
Government,  collected  through  internal  revenue  taxes  and  import  duties, 
are  especially  burdensome  upon  the  poorer  classes  of  society.  A  law  which 
collects  from  some  citizens  more  than  their  share  of  the  taxes  and  collects 
from  other  citizens  less  than  their  share,  is  simply  an  indirect  means  of 
transferring  one  man’s  property  to  another  man’s  pocket,  and  while  the 
process  may  be  quite  satisfactory  to  the  men  who  escape  just  taxation, 
it  can  never  be  satisfactory  to  those  who  are  overburdened.  The  last 
Income  tax  law,  with  its  exemption  provisions,  when  considered  in  connection 


5 


with  other  methods  of  taxation  in  force,  was  not  unjust  to  the  possessors 
of  large  incomes,  because  they  were  not  compelled  to  pay  a  total  Federal 
tax  greater  than  their  share.  The  income  tax  is  not  new  nor  is  it  based  upor^ 
hostility  to  the  rich.  The  system  is  employed  in  several  of  the  most  im¬ 
portant  nations  of  Europe,  and  every  income  tax  law  now  upon  the  statute 
books  in  any  land,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  contains  an 
exemption  clause.  While  the  collection  of  an  income  tax  in  other  coun- 
tnee  does  not  make  it  necessary  for  this  nation  to  adopt  the  system,  yet 
it  ought  to  moderate  the  language  of  those  who  denounce  the  income  tax 
as  an  assault  upon  the  well-to-do. 

Not  only  shall  I  refuse  to  apologize  for  the  advocacy  of  an  income  tax  law 
by  the  National  Convention,  but  I  shall  also  refuse  to  apologize  for  the 
exercise  by  it  of  the  right  to  dissent  from  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
In  a  government  like  ours  every  public  official  is  a  public  servant,  whether 
he  hold  office  by  election  or  by  appointment,  whether  he  serves  for  a  term 
of  years  or  during  good  behavior,  and  the  people  have  a  right  to  criticise 
his  official  acts.  “Confidence  is  everywhere  the  parent  of  despotism;  free 
government  exists  in  jealousy  and  not  in  confidence”— these  are  the  words 
of  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  I  submit  that  they  present  a  truer  conception 
of  popular  government  than  that  entertained  by  those  who  would  prohibit 
an  unfavorable  comment  upon  a  court  decision.  Truth  will  vindicate  itself; 
only  error  fears  free  speech.  No  public  official  who  conscientiously  dis¬ 
charges  his  duty  as  he  sees  it  will  desire  to  deny  to  those  whom  he  serves 
the  right  to  discuss  his  official  conduct. 

Now  let  me  ask  you  to  consider  the  paramount  question  of  this  campaign — 
the  money  question.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  defend  the  principle  of  bi¬ 
metallism.  No  national  party  during  the  entire  history  of  the  United  States 
has  ever  declared  against  it,  and  no  party  in  this  campaign  has  had  the 
temerity  to  oppose  it.  Three  parties— the  Democratic,  Populist  and  Silver 
parties— have  not  only  declared  for  bimetallism,  but  have  outlined  the  spe¬ 
cific  legislation  necessary  to  restore  silver  to  its  ancient  position  by  the  side 
of  gold.  The  Republican  platform  expressly  declares  that  bimetallism  is 
desirable  when  it  pledges  the  Republican  party  to  aid  in  securing  it  as 
soou  as  the  assistance  of  certain  foreign  nations  can  be  obtained.  Those  who 
represented  the  minority  sentiment  in  the  Chicago  Convention  opposed  the 
free  coinage  of  silver  by  the  United  States  by  independent  action  on  the 
ground  that,  in  their  judgment,  it  “would  retard  or  entirely  prevent  the  es¬ 
tablishment  of  international  bimetallism,  to  which  the  efforts  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment  should  be  steadily  directed.”  When  they  asserted  that  the  efforts  of 
the  Government  should  be  steadily  directed  toward  the  establishment  of 
international  bimetallism,  they  condemned  monometallism.  The  gold  stand¬ 
ard  has  been  weighed  in  the  balance  and  found  wanting.  Take  from  it 
the  powerful  support  of  the  money-owning  and  the  money-changing  classes 
and  it  cannot  stand  for  one  day  in  any  nation  in  the  world.  It  was  fastened 
upon  the  United  States  without  discussion  before  the  people,  and  its  friends 
have  never  yet  been  willing  to  risk  a  verdict  before  the  voters  upon  that 
issue. 

There  can  be  no  sympathy  or  co-operation  between  the  advocates  of  a 
universal  gold  standard  and  the  advocates  of  bimetallism.  Between  bimet¬ 
allism — whether  independent  or  international — and  the  gold  standard  there 
is  an  impassable  gulf.  Is  this  quadrennial  agitation  in  favor  of  international 
bimetallism  conducted  in  good  faith,  or  do  our  opponents  really  desire  to 
maintain  the  gold  standard  permanently?  Are  they  willing  to  confess  the 
superiority  of  a  double  standard  when  joined  in  by  the  leading  nations 
of  the  world,  or  do  they  still  insist  that  gold  is  the  only  metal  suitable  for 
standard  money  among  civilized  nations?  If  they  are  in  fact  desirous  of 
securing  bimetallism,  we  may  expect  them  to  point  out  the  evils  of  a  gold 
standard  and  defend  bimetallism  as  a  system. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  bending  their  energies  toward  the  perma¬ 
nent  establishment  of  a  gold  standard  under  cover  of  a  declaration  in  favor 
of  international  bimetallism,  I  am  justified  in  suggesting  that  honest  money 
cannot  be  expected  at  the  hands  of  those  who  deal  dishonestly  with  the 
American  people. 

What  is  the  test  of  honesty  in  money?  It  must  certainly  be  found  in 
the  purchasing  power  of  the  dollar.  An  absolutely  honest  dollar  would 
not  vary  in  its  general  purchasing  power;  it  would  be  absolutely  stable 


6 


when  measured  by  average  prices.  A  dollar  which  increases  in  purchasing 
power  is  just  as  dishonest  as  a  dollar  which  decreases  in  purchasing  power. 
Prolessor  Laughlin,  now  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  and  one  of  the  highest 
gold-standard  authorities,  in  his  work  on  bimetallism,  not  only  admits  that 
gold  does  not  remain  absolutely  stable  in  value,  but  expressly  asserts  “that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  standard  of  value  for  future  payments,  either 
in  gold  or  silver,  which  remains  absolutely  invariable.”  He  even  suggests 
that  a  multiple  standard,  wherein  the  unit  is  “based  upon  the  selling 
prices  of  a  number  of  articles  of  general  consumption,”  would  be  a  more  just 
standard  than  either  gold  or  silver,  or  both,  because  “a  long  time  contract 
would  thereby  be  paid  at  its  maturity  by  the  same  purchasing  power  as 
was  given  in  the  beginning.” 

It  cannot  be  successfully  claimed  that  monometallism  or  bimetallism,  or 
any  other  system,  gives  an  absolutely  just  standard  of  value.  Under  both 
monometallism  and  bimetallism  the  Government  fixes  the  weight  and  fine¬ 
ness  of  the  dollar,  invests  it  with  legal  tender  qualities  and  then  opens 
the  mints  to  its  restricted  coinage,  leaving  the  purchasing  power  of  the 
dollar  to  be  determined  by  the  number  of  dollars.  Bimetallism  is  better 
than  monometallism,  not  because  it  gives  us  a  perfect  dollar— that  is,  a 
dollar  absolutely  unvarying  in  its  general  purchasing  power— but  because  it 
makes  a  nearer  approach  to  stability,  to  honesty,  to  justice,  than  a  gold  stand¬ 
ard  possibly  can.  Prior  to  1873,  when  there  were  enough  open  mints  to  permit 
all  the  gold  and  silver  available  for  coinage  to  find  entrance  into  the  world’s 
volume  of  standard  money,  the  United  States  might  have  maintained  a 
gold  standard  with  less  injury  to  the  people  of  this  country;  but  now,  when 
each  step  toward  a  universal  gold  standard  enhances  the  purchasing  power 
of  gold,  depresses  prices  and  transfers  to  the  pockets  of  the  creditor  class 
an  unearned  increment,  the  influence  of  this  great  nation  must  not  be  thrown 
upon  the  side  of  gold  unless  we  are  prepared  to  accept  the  natural  and 
legitimate  consequences  of  such  an  act.  Any  legislation  which  lessens  the 
world’s  stock  of  standard  money  increases  the  exchangeable  value  of  the 
dollar;  therefore,  the  crusade  against  silver  must  inevitably  raise  the  pur¬ 
chasing  power  of  money  and  lower  the  money  value  of  all  other  forms  of 
property. 

Our  opponents  sometimes  admit  that  it  was  a  mistake  to  demonetize  silver, 
but  insist  that  we  should  submit  to  present  conditions  rather  than  return 
to  the  bimetallic  system.  They  err  in  supposing  that  we  have  reached  the 
end  of  the  evil  results  of  a  gold  standard;  we  have  not  reached  the  end. 
The  injury  is  a  continuing  one,  and  no  person  can  say  how  long  the  world 
is  to  suffer  from  the  attempt  to  make  gold  the  only  standard  money.  The 
same  influences  which  are  now  operating  to  destroy  silver  in  the  United 
States  will,  if  successful  here,  be  turned  against  other  silver-using  coun¬ 
tries.  and  each  new  convert  to  the  gold  standard  will  add  to  the  general 
distress.  So  long  as  the  scramble  for  gold  continues,  prices  must  fall,  and 
a  general  fall  in  prices  is  but  another  definition  of  hard  times. 

Our  opponents,  while  claiming  entire  disinterestedness  for  themselves,  have 
appealed  to  the  selfishness  of  nearly  every  class  of  society.  Recognizing  the 
disposition  of  the  individual  voter  to  consider  the  effect  of  any  proposed 
legislation  upon  himself,  wTe  present  to  the  American  people  the  financial 
policy  outlined  in  the  Chicago  platform,  believing  that  it  will  result  in  the 
greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number. 

The  farmers  are  opposed  to  the  gold  standard  because  they  have  felt  its 
effects.  Since  they  sell  at  wholesale  and  buy  at  retail  they  have  lost  more 
than  they  have  gained  by  falling  prices,  and,  besides  this,  they  have  found 
that  certain  fixed  charges  have  not  fallen  at  all.  Taxes  have  not  been  per¬ 
ceptibly  decreased,  although  it  requires  more  of  farm  products  now  than 
formerly  to  secure  the  money  with  which  to  pay  taxes.  Debts  have  not 
fallen.  The  farmer  who  owed  $1,000  is  still  compelled  to  pay  $1,000, 
although  it  may  be  twice  as  difficult  as  formerly  to  obtain  the  dollars  with 
which  to  pay  the  debt.  Railroad  rates  have  not  been  reduced  to  keep  pace 
with  falling  prices,  and  besides  these  items  there  are  many  more.  The 
farmer  has  thus  found  it  more  and  more  difficult  to  live.  Has  he  not  a 
just  complaint  against  the  gold  standard? 

The  wage-earners  have  been  injured  by  a  gold  standard,  and  have  ex¬ 
pressed  themselves  upon  the  subject  with  great  emphasis.  In  February. 
1895,  a  petition  asking  for  the  immediate  restoration  of  the  free  and  unlim- 


I 


ited  coinage  of  gold  and  silver  at  16  to  1  was  signed  by  the  representatives 
of  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  leading  labor  organizations  and  presented  to  Con¬ 
gress.  Wage-earners  know  that  while  a  gold  standard  raises  the  purchasing 
power  of  the  dollar  it  also  makes  it  more  difficult  to  obtain  possession  of  the 
dollar;  they  know  that  employment  is  less  permanent,  loss  of  work  more 
probable,  and  re-employment  less  certain.  A  gold  standard  encourages  the 
hoarding  of  money  because  money  is  rising;  it  also  discourages  enterprise 
and  paralyzes  industry.  On  the  other  hand,  the  restoration  of  bimetallism 
will  discourage  hoarding,  because,  when  prices  are  steady  or  rising,  money 
cannot  afford  to  lie  idle  in  the  bank  vaults.  The  farmers  and  wage-earners 
together  constitute  a  considerable  majority  of  the  people  of  the  country. 
Why  should  their  interests  be  ignored  in  considering  financial  legislation? 
A  monetary  system  which  is  pecuniarily  advantageous  to  a  few  syndicates 
has  far  less  to  commend  it  than  a  system  which  would  give  hope  and  en¬ 
couragement  to  those  who  create  the  nation’s  wealth. 

Our  opponents  have  made  a  special  appeal  to  those  wTio  hold  fire  and  life 
insurance  policies,  but  these  policy-holders  know  that,  since  the  total  prem¬ 
iums  received  exceed  the  total  losses  paid,  a  rising  standard  must  be  of  more 
benefit  to  the  companies  than  to  the  policy-holders. 

Much  solicitude  has  been  expressed  by  our  opponents  for  the  depositors 
in  savings  banks.  They  constantly  parade  before  these  depositors  the  ad¬ 
vantages  of  a  gold  standard,  but  these  appeals  will  be  in  vain,  because 
savings  bank  depositors  know  that  under  a  gold  standard  there  is  increasing 
danger  that  they  will  lose  their  deposits  because  of  the  inability  of  the 
banks  to  collect  their  assets;  and  they  still  further  know  that,  if  the  gold 
standard  is  to  continue  infinitely,  they  may  be  compelled  to  withdraw  their 
deposits  in  order  to  pay  living  expenses. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  note  the  increasing  number  of  failures  in  order  to 
know  that  a  gold  standard  is  ruinous  to  merchants  and  manufacturers. 
These  business  men  do  not  make  their  profits  from  the  people  from  whom 
they  borrow  money,  but  from  the  people  to  whom  they  sell  their  goods. 
If  the  people  cannot  buy,  retailers  cannot  sell,  and,  if  retailers  cannot  sell, 
wholesale  merchants  and  manufacturers  must  go  into  bankruptcy. 

Those  who  hold,  as  a  permanent  investment,  the  stock  of  railroads  and  of 
other  enterprises — I  do  not  include  those  who  speculate  in  stocks  or  use 
stock-holdings  as  a  means  of  obtaining  an  inside  advantage  in  construction 
contracts— are  injured  by  a  gold  standard.  The  rising  dollar  destroys  the 
earning  power  of  these  enterprises  without  reducing  their  liabilities,  and.  as 
dividends  cannot  be  paid  until  salaries  and  fixed  charges  have  been  satisfied, 
the  stockholders  must  bear  the  burden  of  hard  times. 

Salaries  in  business  occupations  depend  upon  business  conditions,  and  the 
gold  standard  both  lessens  the  amount  and  threatens  the  permanency  of 
such  salaries. 

Official  salaries,  except  the  salaries  of  those  who  hold  office  for  life,  must, 
in  the  long  run,  be  adjusted  to  the  conditions  of  those  wTho  pay  the  taxes, 
and  if  the  present  financial  policy  continues  we  must  expect  the  contest 
between  the  taxpayer  and  the  taxeater  to  increase  in  bitterness. 

The  professional  classes— in  the  main— derive  their  support  from  the  pro¬ 
ducing  classes,  and  can  only  enjoy  prosperity  when  there  is  prosperity 
among  those  who  create  wealth. 

I  have  not  attempted  to  describe  the  effect  of  the  gold  standard  upon  all 
classes— in  fact,  I  have  only  had  time  to  mention  a  few— but  each  person  will 
be  able  to  apply  the  principles  stated  to  his  own  occupation. 

It  must  "also  be  remembered  that  it  is  the  desire  of  people  generally  to 
convert  their  earnings  into  real  or  personal  property.  This  being  true,  in 
considering  any  temporary  advantage  which  may  come  from  a  system  under 
which  the  dollar  rises  in  its  purchasing  powder,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  dollar  cannot  buy  more  than  formerly,  unless  property  sells  for  less 
than  formerly.  Hence,  it  will  be  seen  that  a  large  jiortion  of  those  who 
may  find  some  pecuniary  advantage  in  a  gold  standard  will  discover  that 
tbeii  losses  exceed  their  gains. 

It  is  sometimes  asserted  by  our  opponents  that  a  bank  belongs  to  the  debtor 
class,  but  this  is  not  true  of  any  solvent  bank.  Every  statement  published 
by  a  solvent  bank  shows  that  the  assets  exceed  the  liabilities.  That  is  to 
say.  while  the  bank  owes  a  large  amount  of  money  to  its  depositors,  it  not 
only  has  enough  on  hand  in  money  and  notes  to  pay  its  depositors,  but,  in 


8 


addition  thereto,  has  enough  to  cover  its  capital  and  surplus.  When  the 
dollar  is  rising  in  value  slowly  a  bank  may,  by  making  short-time  loans  and 
taking  good  security,  avoid  loss,  but  when  prices  are  falling  rapidly  the 
bank  is  apt  to  lose  more  because  of  bad  debts  than  it  can  gain  by  the 
increase  in  the  purchasing  power  of  its  capital  and  surplus. 

Some  bankers,  however,  combine  the  business  of  a  bond  broker  with  the 
ordinary  banking  business,  and  these  may  make  enough  in  the  negotiation 
of  loans  to  offset  the  losses  arising  in  legitimate  banking  business.  As 
long  as  human  nature  remains  as  it  is  there  will  always  be  danger 
that,  unless  restrained  by  public  opinion  or  legal  enactment,  those 
who  see  a  pecuniary  benefit  for  themselves  in  a  certain  condition 
may  yield  to  the  temptation  to  bring  about  that  condition.  Jefferson  has 
stated  that  one  of  the  main  duties  of  government  is  to  prevent  men  from 
injuring  one  another,  and  never  was  that  duty  more  important  than  it  is 
to-day.  It  is  not  strange  that  those  who  have  made  a  profit  by  furnishing 
gold  to  the  Government  in  the  hour  of  its  extremity,  favor  a  financial  policy 
which  will  keep  the  Government  dependent  upon  them.  I  believe,  however, 
that  I  speak  the  sentiment  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  when  I  say  that  a  wise  financial  policy  administered  in  behalf  of  all 
the  people  would  make  our  Government  independent  of  any  combination  of 
financiers,  foreign  or  domestic. 

Let  me  say  a  word,  now,  in  regard  to  certain  persons  who  are  pecuniarily 
benefited  by  a  gold  standard,  and  who  favor  it,  not  from  a  desire  to  trespass 
upon  the  rights  of  others,  but  because  the  circumstances  which  surround 
them  blind  them  to  the  effect  of  the  gold  standard  upon  others.  I  shall 
ask  you  to  consider  the  language  of  two  gentlemen  whose  long  public  service 
and  high  standing  in  the  party  to  which  they  belong  will  protect  them  from 
adverse  criticism  by  our  opponents.  In  1869  Senator  Sherman  said:  “The 
contraction  of  the  currency  is  a  far  more  distressing  operation  than  Senators 
suppose.  Our  own  and  other  nations  have  gone  through  that  operation 
before.  It  is  not  possible  to  take  that  voyage  without  the  sorest  distress. 
To  every  person,  except  a  capitalist  out  of  debt,  or  a  salaried  officer  or 
annuitant,  it  is  a  period  of  loss,  danger,  lassitude  of  trade,  fall  of  wages, 
suspension  of  enterprise,  bankruptcy  and  disaster.  It  means  ruin  to  all 
dealers  whose  debts  are  twice  their  business  capital,  though  one-third  less 
than  their  actual  property.  It  means  the  fall  of  all  agricultural  production 
without  any  great  reduction  of  taxes.  What  prudent  man  would  dare  to 
build  a  house,  a  railroad,  a  factory  or  a  barn  with  this  certain  fact  before 
him?”  As  I  have  said  before,  the  salaried  officer  referred  to  must  be  the 
man  whose  salary  is  fixed  for  life,  and  not  the  man  whose  salary  depends 
upon  business  conditions.  When  Mr.  Sherman  describes  contraction  of  the 
currency  as  disastrous  to  all  the  people  except  the  capitalist  out  of  debt 
and  those  who  stand  in  a  position  similar  to  his,  he  is  stating  a  truth  which 
must  be  apparent  to  every  person  who  will  give  the  matter  careful  consid¬ 
eration.  Mr.  Sherman  was  at  that  time  speaking  of  the  contraction  of  the 
volume  of  paper  currency,  but  the  principle  which  he  set  forth  applies,  if 
there  is  a  contraction  of  the  volume  of  the  standard  money  of  the  world. 

Mr.  Blaine  discussed  the  same  principle  in  connection  with  the  demone¬ 
tization  of  silver.  Speaking  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  7th 
of  February,  1878,  he  said:  “I  believe  the  struggle  now  going  on  in  this 
country  and  other  countries  for  a  single  gold  standard  would,  if  successful, 
produce  widespread  disaster  in  and  throughout  the  commercial  world.  The 
destruction  of  silver  as  money,  and  the  establishing  of  gold  as  the  sole 
unit  of  value  must  have  a  ruinous  effect  on  all  forms  of  property,  except 
those  investments  which  yield  a  fixed  return  in  money.  These  would  be  enor¬ 
mously  enhanced  in  value,  and  would  gain  a  disproportionate  and  unfair 
advantage  over  every  other  species  of  property.”  Is  it  strange  that  the 
“holders  of  investments  which  yield  a  fixed  return  in  money”  can  regard 
the  destruction  of  silver  with  complacency?  May  we  not  expect  the  holders 
of  other  forms  of  property  to  protest  against  giving  to  money  a  “dispropor¬ 
tionate  and  unfair  advantage  over  every  other  species  of  property?”  If  the 
relatively  few  whose  wealth  consists  largely  in  fixed  investments  have  a 
right  to  use  the  ballot  to  enhance  the  value  of  their  investments,  have 
not  the  rest  of  the  people  the  right  to  use  the  ballot  to  protect  themselves 
from  the  disastrous  consequences  of  a  rising  standard? 

The  people  who  must  purchase  money  with  the  products  of  toil  stand 


in  a  position  entirely  different  from  the  position  of  those  who  own  money 
or  receive  a  fixed  income.  The  well-being  of  the  nation — aye,  of  civilization 
itself— depends  upon  the  prosperity  of  the  masses.  What  shall  it  profit  us  to 
have  a  dollar  which  grows  more  valuable  every  day  if  such  a  dollar  lowers 
the  standard  of  civilization  and  brings  distress  to  the  people?  What  shall 
it  protit  us  if,  in  trying  to  raise  our  credit  by  increasing  the  purchasing 
power  of  our  dollar,  we  destroy  our  ability  to  pay  the  debts  already  con¬ 
tracted  by  lowering  the  purchasing  power  of  the  products  with  which  those 
debts  must  be  paid?  If  it  is  asserted,  as  it  constantly  is  asserted,  that  the 
gold  standard  will  enable  us  to  borrow  more  money  from  abroad,  I  reply 
that  the  restoration  of  bimetallism  will  restore  the  parity  between  money 
and  property,  and  thus  permit  an  era  of  prosperity  which  will  enable  the 
American  people  to  become  loaners  of  money  instead  of  perpetual  borrowers. 
Even  if  we  desire  to  borrow,  how  long  can  we  continue  borrowing  under 
a  system  which,  by  lowering  the  value  of  property,  weakens  the  foundation 
upon  which  credit  rests? 

Even  the  holders  of  fixed  investments,  though  they  gain  an  advantage 
from  the  appreciation  of  the  dollar,  certainly  see  the  injustice  of  the  legis¬ 
lation  which  gives  them  this  advantage  over  those  whose  incomes  depend 
upon  the  value  of  property  and  products.  If  the  holders  of  fixed  invest¬ 
ments  will  not  listen  to  arguments  based  upon  justice  and  equity,  I  appeal 
to  them  to  consider  the  interests  of  posterity.  We  do  not  live  for  ourselves 
alone;  our  labor,  our  self-denial  and  our  anxious  care — all  these  are  for  those 
who  are  to  come  after  us,  as  much  as  for  ourselves,  but  we  cannot  protect 
our  children  beyond  the  period  of  our  lives.  Let  those  who  are  now  reaping 
advantage  from  a  vicious  financial  system  remember  that,  in  the  years  to 
come,  their  own  children  and  their  children’s  children  may,  through  the 
operation  of  this  same  system,  be  made  to  pay  tribute  to  the  descendants 
of  those  who  are  wronged  to-day. 

As  against  the  maintenance  of  a  gold  standard,  either  permanently  or  until 
other  nations  can  be  united  for  its  overthrow,  the  Chicago  platform  presents 
a  clear  and  emphatic  demand  for  the  immediate  restoration  of  the  free  and 
unlimited  coinage  of  silver  and  gold  at  the  present  legal  ratio  of  16  to  1, 
without  waiting  for  the  aid  or  consent  of  any  other  nation.  We  are  not 
asking  that  a  new  experiment  be  tried;  we  are  insisting  upon  a  return  to  a 
financial  policy  approved  by  the  experience  of  history  and  supported  by  all 
the  prominent  statesmen  of  our  nation  from  the  days  of  the  first  President 
down  to  1873.  When  we  ask  that  our  mints  be  opened  to  the  free  and 
unlimited  coinage  of  silver  into  full  legal  tender  money,  we  are  simply  asking 
that  the  same  mint  privileges  be  accorded  to  silver  that  are  now  accorded 
to  gold.  When  w^e  ask  that  this  coinage  be  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  1  we  simply 
ask  that  our  gold  coins  and  the  standard  silver  dollar— which,  be  it  remem¬ 
bered,  contains  the  same  amount  of  pure  silver  as  the  first  silver  dollar 
coined  at  our  mints — retain  their  present  weight  and  fineness. 

The  theoretical  advantage  of  the  bimetallic  system  is  best  stated  by  a 
European  writer  on  political  economy,  who  suggests  the  following  illustra¬ 
tion:  A  river  fed  from  two  sources  is  more  uniform  in  volume  than  a  river 
fed  from  one  source — the  reason  being  that  when  one  of  the  feeders  is 
swollen  the  other  may  be  low;  whereas,  a  river  which  has  but  one  feeder 
must  rise  or  fall  with  that  feeder.  So  in  the  case  of  bimetallism;  the  volume 
of  metallic  money  receives  contributions  from  both  the  gold  mines  and  the 
silver  mines,  and,  therefore,  Tories  less;  and  the  dollar,  resting  upon  two 
metals,  is  less  changeable  in  its  purchasing  power  than  the  dollar  which 
rests  upon  one  metal  only. 

If  there  are  two  kinds  of  money,  the  option  must  rest  either  with  the 
debtor  or  with  the  creditor.  Assuming  that  their  rights  are  equal,  we  must 
look  at  the  interests  of  society  in  general  in  order  to  determine  to  which  side 
the  option  should  be  given.  Under  the  bimetallic  system,  gold  and  silver 
are  linked  together  by  law  at  a  fixed  ratio,  and  any  person  or  persons 
owning  any  quantity  of  either  metal  can  have  the  same  converted  into  full 
legal-tender  money.  If  the  creditor  has  the  right  to  choose  the  metal  in 
which  payment  shall  be  made,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  will 
require  the  debtor  to  pay  in  the  dearer  metal  if  there  is  any  perceptible  dif¬ 
ference  between  the  bullion  values  of  the  metals.  This  new  demand  created 
for  the  dearer  metal  will  make  that  metal  dearer  still,  wifile  the  decreased 
demand  for  the  cheaper  metal  will  make  that  metal  cheaper  still.  If.  on 


10 


the  other  hand,  the  debtor  exercises  the  option,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  he  will  pay  in  the  cheaper  metal  if  one  metal  is  perceptibly  cheaper  man 
the  other;  but  the  demand  thus  created  for  the  cheaper  metal  will  raise 
its  price,  while  the  lessened  demand  for  the  dearer  metal  will  lower  its 
price.  In  other  words,  when  the  creditor  has  the  option,  the  metals  are 
drawn  apart;  whereas,  when  the  debtor  has  the  option,  the  metals  are  held 
together  approximately  at  the  ratio  fixed  by  law;  provided  the  demand 
created  is  sufficient  to  absorb  all  of  both  metals  presented  at  the  mint. 

Society  is,  therefore,  interested  in  having  the  option  exercised  by  the  debtor. 
Indeed,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  real  bimetallism  unless  the  option 
is  exercised  by  the  debtor.  The  exercise  of  the  option  by  the  debtor  compels 
the  creditor  classes,  whether  domestic  or  foreign,  to  exert  themselves  to 
maintain  the  parity  between  gold  and  silver  at  the  legal  ratio,  whereas  they 
might  find  a  profit  in  driving  one  of  the  metals  to  a  premium  if  they  could 
then  demand  the  dearer  metal.  The  right  of  the  debtor  to  choose  the  coin 
in  which  payment  shall  be  made  extends  to  obligations  due  from  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  as  well  as  to  contracts  between  individuals.  A  Government  obli¬ 
gation  is  simply  a  debt  due  from  all  of  the  people  to  one  of  the  people, 
and  it  is  impossible  to  justify  a  policy  which  makes  the  interests  of  the 
one  person  who  holds  the  obligation  superior  to  the  rights  of  the  many  who 
must  be  taxed  to  pay  it.  When,  prior  to  1873,  silver  was  at  a  premium,  it 
was  never  contended  that  national  honor  required  the  payment  of  Goy em¬ 
inent  obligations  in  silver,  and  the  Matthews  resolution,  adopted  by  Congress 
in  1878,  expressly  asserted  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  redeem  coin 
obligations  in  standard  silver  dollars  as  well  as  in  gold  coin. 

Upon  this  subject  the  Chicago  platform  reads:  “We  are  opposed  to  the 
policy  and  practice  of  surrendering  to  the  holders  of  the  obligations  of  the 
United  States  the  option  reserved  by  law  to  the  Government  of  redeeming 
such  obligations  in  either  silver  coin  or  gold  coin.” 

It  is  constantly  assumed  by  some  that  the  United  States  notes,  commonly 
called  greenbacks,  and  the  Treasury  notes,  issued  under  the  act  of  1890,  are 
responsible  for  the  recent  drain  upon  the  gold  reserve,  but  this  assumption 
is  entirely  without  foundation.  Secretary  Carlisle  appeared  before  the 
House  Committee  on  Appropriations  on  January  21,  1895,  and  I  quote  from 
the  printed  report  of  his  testimony  before  the  committee: 

Mr.  Sibley:  I  would  like  to  ask  you  (perhaps  not  entirely  connected  with 
the  matcer  under  discussion  what  objection  could  there  be  to  having  the 
option  of  redeeming  either  in  silver  or  gold  lie  with  the  Treasury  instead 
of  the  note-holder? 

Secretary  Carlisle:  If  that  policy  had  been  adopted  at  the  beginning  of 
resumption— and  I  am  not  saying  this  for  the  purpose  of  criticising  the 
action  of  any  of  my  predecessors,  or  anybody  else— but  if  the  policy  of  re¬ 
serving  to  the  Government,  at  the  beginning  of  resumption,  the  option  of 
redeeming  in  gold  or  silver  all  its  paper  presented,  I  believe  it  would  have 
worked  beneficially,  and  there  would  have  been  no  trouble  growing  out  of  it, 
but  the  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  from  the  beginning  of  resumption  have 
pursued  a  policy  of  redeeming  in  gold  or  silver,  at  the  option  of  the  holder 
of  the  paper,  and  if  any  Secretary  had  afterwards  attempted  to  change  that 
policy  and  force  silver  upon  a  man  who  wanted  gold,  or  gold  upon  a  man 
who  wanted  silver,  and  especially  if  he  had  made  that  attempt  at  such  a 
critical  period  as  we  have  had  in  the  last^two  years,  my  judgment  is  it 
would  have  been  very  disastrous. 


I  do  not  agree  with  the  Secretary  that  it  was  wise  to  follow  a  bad  pre¬ 
cedent,  but  from  nis  answer  it  will  be  seen  that  the  fault  does  not  lie  with 
the  greenbacks  and  Treasury  notes,  but  rather  with  the  executive  officers 
who  have  seen  fit  to  surrender  a  right  which  should  have  been  exercised 

hie  rtectl0Vf  interests  of  the  people.  This  executive  action  has 
alieady  been  made  the  excuse  for  the  issue  of  more  than  $250,000  000  in 
bonds,  and  it  is  impossible  to  estimate  the  amount  of  bonds  which  mav 
hereafter  be  issued  if  this  polfcy  is  continued.  We  are  told  that  any  attempt 
P»rt  of  the  Government  at  this  time  to  redeem  its  obligations  ?n 
s  would  put  a  piemium  upon  gold,  but  why  should  it?  The  Bank  of 
France  exercises  the  right  to  redeem  all  bank  paper  in  either  o-olri  nr 
silver,  and  yet  France  maintains  the  parity  between  gold  and  silver’ at  the 


11 


ratio  of  lb1/!’  to  1,  and  retains  in  circulation  more  silver  per  capita  than  we 
do  in  the  United  States. 

It  may  be  further  answered  that  our  opponents  have  suggested  no  feasible 
plan  for  avoiding  the  dangers  which  they  fear.  The  retirement  of  the  green¬ 
backs  and  Treasury  notes  would  not  protect  the  Treasury,  because  the  same 
policy  which  now'  leads  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  redeem  all  Gov¬ 
ernment  paper  in  gold,  when  gold  is  demanded,  will  require  the  redemption 
of  all  silver  dollars  and  silver  certificates  in  gold,  if  the  greenbacks  and 
Treasury  notes  are  withdrawn  from  circulation.  More  than  this,  if  the 
Government  should  retire  its  paper  and  throw  upon  the  banks  the  necessity 
of  furnishing  coin  redemption,  the  banks  would  exercise  the  right  to  furnish 
either  gold  or  silver.  In  other  words,  they  vrould  exercise  the  option,  just 
as  the  Government  ought  to  exercise  it  now.  The  Government  must  either 
exercise  the  right  to  redeem  its  obligations  in  silver  wTien  silver  is  more 
convenient,  or  it  must  retire  all  the  silver  and  silver  certificates  from  circula¬ 
tion  and  leave  nothing  but  gold  as  legal-tender  money.  Are  our  opponents 
willing  to  outline  a  financial  system  which  will  carry  out  their  policy  to  its 
legitimate  conclusion,  or  will  they  continue  to  cloak  their  designs  in  ambig¬ 
uous  phrases? 

There  is  an  actual  necessity  for  bimetallism  as  well  as  a  theoretical 
defence  of  it.  During  the  last  twenty-three  years  legislation  has  been 
creating  an  additional  demand  for  gold,  and  this  law-created  demand  has 
resulted  in  increasing  the  purchasing  power  of  each  ounce  of  gold.  The 
restoration  of  bimetallism  in  the  United  States  will  take  away  from  gold 
just  so  much  of  its  purchasing  pow'er  as  was  added  to  it  by  the  demonetiza¬ 
tion  of  silver  by  the  United  States.  The  silver  dollar  is  now  held  up  to  the 
gold  dollar  by  legal-tender  laws  and  not  by  redemption  in  gold,  because  the 
standard  silver  dollars  are  not  now  redeemable  in  gold  either  in  law  or  by 
administrative  policy. 

We  contend  that  free  and  unlimited  coinage  by  the  United  States  alone  will 
raise  the  bullion  value  of  silver  to  its  coinage  value,  and  thus  make  silver 
bullion  worth  $1.29  per  ounce  in  gold  throughout  the  world.  This  proposition 
is  in  keeping  with  natural  law's,  not  in  defiance  of  them.  The  best  known 
law  of  commerce  is  the  law'  of  supply  and  demand.  We  recognize  this  law 
and  build  our  argument  upon  it.  *  We  apply  this  law'  to  money  when  w^e 
say  that  a  reduction  in  the  volume  of  money  will  raise  the  purchasing  power 
of  the  dollar;  wre  also  apply  the  law'  of  supply  and  demand  to  silver  when 
we  say  that  a  new  demand  for  silver  created  by  law  will  raise  the  price  of 
silver  bullion.  Gold  and  silver  are  different  from  other  commodities, 
in  that  they  are  limited  in  quantity.  Corn,  wheat,  manufactured  products, 
etc.,  can  be  produced  almost  without  limit,  provided  they  can  be  sold  at  a 
price  sufficient  to  stimulate  production,  but  gold  and  silver  are  called  precious 
metals,  because  they  are  found,  not  produced.  These  metals  have  been  the 
objects  of  anxious  search  as  far  back  as  history  runs,  yet,  according  to 
Mr.  Harvey’s  calculation,  all  the  gold  coin  of  the  w'orld  can  be  melted  into 
a  22-foot  cube,  and  all  the  silver  coin  in  the  world  into  a  66-foot  cube.  Be¬ 
cause  gold  and  silver  are  limited,  both  in  the  quantity  now'  in  hand,  and  in 
annual  production,  it  follows  that  legislation  can  fix  the  ratio  Between  them. 

Any  purchaser  who  stands  ready  to  take  the  entire  supply  of  any  given 
article  at  a  certain  price  can  prevent  that  article  from  falling  below'  that 
price.  So  the  Government  can  fix  a  price  for  gold  and  silver  by  creating 
a  demand  greater  than  the  supply.  International  bimetallists  believe  that 
several  nations,  by  entering  into  an  agreement  to  coin  at  a  fixed  ratio  all 
the  gold  and  silver  presented,  can  maintain  the  bullion  value  of  the  metals 
ft  >he  mint  ratio.  When  a  mint  price  is  thus  established,  it  regulates  the 
bullion  price,  because  any  person  desiring  coin  may  have  the  bullion  con¬ 
verted  into  com  at  that  price,  and  any  person  desiring  bullion  can  secure 
it  by  melting  the  coin.  The  only  question  upon  which  international  bimet- 

K  ■»  wi  oil!  gl  t  _  *  _  i  i  .  .  _ 


allists  and  independent  bimetallists  differ  is:  Can  the  United  States  bv  the 
f  unlmnted  coinage  of  silver  at  the  present  legal  ratio  create  a 
demand  for  silver  u'hich.  taken  in  connection  with  the  demand  alreadv  in 
existence,  will  be  sufficient  to  utilize  all  the  silver  that  will  be  presented 

thev  •  u  aTTe  iD  thei’-  defence  of  the  bimetallic  principle,  and 

Ik 3  agree  in  unalterable  opposition  to  the  gold  standard.  International 

l  i metallists  cannot  complain  that  free  coinage  gives  a  benefit  to  the  mine 

owmer,  because  international  bimetallism  gives  to  the  owmer  of  silver  all 


the  advantages  offered  by  independent  bimetallism  at  the  same  ratio.  Inter¬ 
national  bimetallists  cannot  accuse  the  advocates  of  free  silver  of  being 
■“bullion  owners  who  desire  to  raise  the  value  of  their  bullion;”  or  “debtors 
who  desire  to  pay  their  debts  in  cheap  dollars;”  or  “demagogues  who  desire 
to  curry  favor  with  the  people.”  They  must  rest  their  opposition  upon  one 
ground  only,  namely:  That  the  supply  of  silver  available  for  coinage  is  too 
large  to  be  utilized  by  the  United  States. 

In  discussing  this  question  we  must  consider  the  capacity  of  our  people 
to  use  silver  and  the  quantity  of  silver  which  can  come  to  our  mints.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  we  live  in  a  country  only  partially  developed,  and  that 
our  people  far  surpass  any  equal  number  of  people  in  the  world  in  their 
power  to  consume  and  produce.  Our  extensive  railroad  development  and 
enormous  internal  commerce  must  also  be  taken  into  consideration.  Now, 
how  much  silver  can  come  here?  Not  the  coined  silver  of  the  world,  because 
almost  all  of  it  is  more  valuable  at  this  time  in  other  lands  than  it  will  be 
at  our  mints  under  free  coinage.  If  our  mints  are  opened  to  free  and  unlim¬ 
ited  coinage  at  the  present  ratio,  merchandise  silver  cannot  come  here,  be¬ 
cause  the  labor  applied  to  it  has  made  it  worth  more  in  the  form  of  mer¬ 
chandise  than  it  will  be  worth  at  our  mints.  We  cannot  even  expect  all  of 
the  annual  product  of  silver,  because  India,  China,  Japan,  Mexico  and  all 
the  other  silver-using  countries  must  satisfy  their  annual  needs  from  the 
annual  product;  the  arts  will  require  a  large  amount,  and  the  gold  standard 
countries  will  need  a  considerable  quantity  for  subsidiary  coinage.  We  will 
be  required  to  coin  only  that  which  is  not  needed  elsewhere;  but,  if  we  stand 
ready  to  take  and  utilize  all  of  it,  other  nations  will  be  compelled  to  buy  at 
the  price  which  we  fix.  Many  fear  that  the  opening  of  our  mints  will  be 
followed  by  an  enormous  increase  in  the  annual  production  of  silver.  This 
is  conjecture.  Silver  has  been  used  as  money  for  thousands  of  years,  and 
during  all  of  that  time  the  world  has  never  suffered  from  an  over-production. 
If,  for  any  reason,  the  supply  of  gold  or  silver  in  the  future  ever  exceeds 
the  requirements  of  the  arts  and  the  needs  of  commerce,  we  confidently 
hope  that  the  intelligence  of  the  people  will  be  sufficient  to  devise  and  enact 
any  legislation  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  public.  It  is  folly  to 
refuse  to  the  people  the  money  which  they  now  need  for  fear  they  may 
hereafter  have  more  than  they  need.  I  am  firmly  convinced  that  by  opening 
our  mints  to  free  and  unlimited  coinage  at  the  present  ratio  we  can  create 
a  demand  for  silver  which  will  keep  the  price  of  silver  bullion  at  $1.29  per 
ounce,  measured  by  gold. 

Some  of  our  opponents  attribute  the  fall  in  the  value  of  silver,  when  meas¬ 
ured  by  gold,  to  the  fact  that  during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  the  world’s 
supply  of  silver  has  increased  more  rapidly  than  the  world’s  supply  of  gold. 
This  argument  is  entirely  answered  by  the  fact  that,  during  the  last  five 
years,  the  annual  production  of  gold  has  increased  more  rapidly  than  the  an¬ 
imal  production  of  silver.  Since  the  gold  price  of  silver  has  fallen  more  dur¬ 
ing  these  five  years  than  it  ever  fell  in  any  previous  five  years  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  world,  it  is  evident  that  the  fall  is  not  due  to  increased  produc¬ 
tion.  Prices  can  be  lowered  as  effectually  by  decreasing  the  demand  for  an 
article  as  by  increasing  the  supply  of  it,  and  it  seems  certain  that  the  fall  in 
the  gold  price  of  silver  is  due  to  hostile  legislation  and  not  to  natural  laws, 
In  other  words,  when  gold  leaves  the  country  those  who  formerly  owned 
it  will  be  benefited.  There  is  no  process  by  which  we  can  be  compelled 
to  part  with  our  gold  against  our  will,  nor  is  there  any  process  by  which 
silver  can  be  forced  upon  us  without  our  consent.  Exchanges  are  matters 
of  agreement,  and  if  silver  comes  to  this  country  under  free  coinage  it  will 
be  at  the  invitation  of  some  one  in  this  country  who  will  give  something 
in  exchange  for  it. 

In  answer  to  the  charge  that  gold  will  go  abroad  under  free  coinage, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  no  gold  can  leave  this  country  until  the  owner 
of  the  gold  receives  something  in  return  for  it  which  he  would  rather  have. 

Our  opponents  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  gold  is  now  going  abroad  in 
spite  of  all  legislation  intended  to  prevent  it,  and  no  silver  is  being  coined  to 
take  its  place.  Not  only  is  gold  going  abroad  now,  but  it  must  continue  to  go 
abroad  as  long  as  the  present  financial  policy  is  adhered  to,  unless  we  continue 
to  borrow  from  across  the  ocean,  and  even  then  we  simply  postpone  the  evil, 
because  the  amount  borrowed,  together  with  the  interest  upon  it,  must  be  re¬ 
paid  in  appreciating  dollars.  The  American  people  now  owe  a  large  sum  to 


13 


European  creditors,  and  falling  prices  have  left  a  larger  and  larger  margin 
between  our  net  national  income  and  our  annual  interest  change.  There  is 
only  one  way  to  stop  the  increasing  flow  of  gold  from  our  shores,  and  that 
is  to  stop  falling  prices.  The  restoration  of  bimetallism  will  not  only  stop 
falling  prices,  but  will — to  some  extent — restore  prices  by  reducing  the  world's 
demand  for  gold.  If  it  is  argued  that  a  rise  in  prices  lessens  the  value  of  the 
dollars  which  we  pay  to  our  creditors,  I  reply  that,  in  the  balancing  of  equi¬ 
ties  the  American  people  have  as  much  right  to  favor  a  financial  system 
which  will  maintain  or  restore  prices  as  foreign  creditors  have  to  insist  upon 
a  financial  system  that  will  reduce  prices.  But  the  interests  of  society  are 
far  superior  to  the  interests  of  either  debtors  or  creditors,  and  the  interests 
of  society  demand  a  financial  system  which  will  add  to  the  volume  of  the 
standard  money  of  the  world,  and  thus  restore  stability  to  prices. 

Perhaps  the  most  persistent  misrepresentation  that  we  have  to  meet  is  the 
charge  that  we  are  advocating  the  payment  of  debts  in  fifty-cent  dollars.  At 
the  present  time  and  under  present  laws  a  silver  dollar,  when  melted,  loses 
nearly  half  its  value,  but  that  will  not  be  true  when  we  again  establish  a 
mint  price  for  silver  and  leave  no  surplus  silver  upon  the  market  to  drag 
down  the  price  of  bullion.  Under  bimetallism  silver  bullion  will  be  worth  as 
much  as  silver  coin,  just  as  gold  bullion  is  now  worth  as  much  as  gold  coin, 
and  we  believe  that  a  silver  dollar  will  be  worth  as  much  as  a  gold  dollar.  ' 

The  charge  of  repudiation  comes  with  poor  grace  from  those  who  are 
seeking  to  add  to  the  weight  of  existing  debts  by  legislation  which  makes 
money  dearer,  and  who  conceal  their  designs  against  the  general  welfare 
under  the  euphonious  pretence  that  they  are  upholding  public  credit  and  na¬ 
tional  honor. 

Those  who  deny  the  ability  of  the  United  States  to  maintain  the  parity  be¬ 
tween  gold  and  silver  at  the  present  legal  ratio  without  foreign  aid  point  to 
Mexico  and  assert  that  the  opening  of  our  mints  will  reduce  us  to  a  silver 
basis  and  raise  gold  to  a  premium.  It  is-  no  reflection  upon  our  sister  Repub¬ 
lic  to  remind  our  people  that  the  United  States  is  much  greater  than  Mexico 
in  area,  in  population  and  in  commercial  strength.  It  is  absurd  to  assert 
that  the  United  States  is  not  able  to  do  anything  which  Mexico  has  failed  to 
accomplish.  The  one  thing  necessary  in  order  to  maintain  the  parity  is  to 
furnish  a  demand  great  enough  to  utilize  all  the  silver  which  will  come  to 
our  mints.  That  Mexico  has  failed  to  do  this  is  not  proof  that  the  United 
States  would  also  fail. 

It  is  also  argued  that,  since  a  number  of  the  nations  have  demonetized 
silver,  nothing  can  be  done  until  all  of  those  nations  restore  bimetallism. 
This  is  also  illogical.  It  is  immaterial  how  many  or  how  few  nations  have 
open  mints,  provided  there  are  sufficient  open  mints  to  furnish  a  monetary 
demand  for  all  the  gold  and  silver  available  for  coinage. 

In  reply  to  the  argument  that  improved  machinery  has  lessened  the  cost  of 
producing  silver,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  same  is  true  of  the  production 
of  gold,  and  yet,  notwithstanding  that,  gold  has  risen  in  value.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  cost  of  production  does  not  determine  the  value  of  the  precious 
metals,  except  as  it  may  affect  the  supply.  If,  for  instance,  the  cost  of  pro¬ 
ducing  gold  should  be  reduced  90  per  cent,  without  any  increase  in  the  out¬ 
put,  the  purchasing  power  of  an  ounce  of  gold  would  not  fall.  So  long  as 
there  is  a  monetary  demand  sufficient  to  take  at  a  fixed  mint  price  all  of 
the  gold  and  silver  produced,  the  cost  of  production  need  not  be  considered. 

It  is  often  objected  that  the  prices  of  gold  and  silver  cannot  be  fixed  in  re¬ 
lation  to  each  other,  because  of  the  variation  in  the  relative  production  of 
the  metals.  This  argument  also  overlooks  the  fact  that,  if  the  demand  for 
both  metals  at  a  fixed'  price  is  greater  than  the  supply  of  both,  relative  pro¬ 
duction  becomes  immaterial.  In  the  early  part  of  the  present  century  the 
annual  production  of  silver  was  worth,  at  the  coinage  ratio,  about  three 
times  as  much  as  the  annual  production  of  gold;  whereas  soon  after  1849, 
the  anual  production  of  gold  became  worth  about  three  times  as  much,  at 
the  coinage  ratio,  as  the  annual  production  of  silver;  and  yet,  ow;ng  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  bimetallic  standard,  these  enormous  changes  in  relative 
production  had  but  a  slight  effect  upon  the  relative  values  of  the  metals. 

If  it  is  asserted  by  our  opponents  that  the  free  coinage  of  silver  is  intended 
only  for  the  benefit  of  the  mine  owners,  it  must  be  remembered  that  free 
coinage  cannot  restore  to  the  mine  owners  any  more  than  demonetization 
took  away;  and  it  must  also  be  remembered  that  the  loss  which  the  demone¬ 
tization  of  silver  has  brought  to  the  mine  owners  is  insignificant  compared 
to  the  loss  which  this  policy  has  brought  to  the  rest  of  the  people.  The  res-. 


14 


torat’on  of  silver  will  bring  to  the  people  generally  many  times  as  much  ad¬ 
vantage  as  the  mine  ownri  can  obtain  from  it.  While  it  is  not  the  purpose 
of  free  coinage  to  specially  aid  any  particular  class,  yet  those  who 
that  the  restoration  of  silver  is  needed  by  the  whole  people  should  not  be 
deterred  because  an  incidental  beneht  will  come  to  the  mine  o\\neis.  J  lie 
erection  of  forts,  the  deepening  of  harbors,  the  improvements  ot  rivers,  the 
erection  of  public  buildings— all  these  confer  incidental  benefits  upon  individ¬ 
uals  and  communities,  and  yet  these  incidental  benefits  do  not  detei  us  tiom 
making  appropriations  for  these  purposes  whenever  such  appropriations  are 

necessary  for  the  public  good.  .  . ,  ,  ..  ,  ... 

The  argument  that  a  silver  dollar  is  heavier  than  a  gold  dollar,  and  that, 
therefore,  silver  is  less  convenient  to  carry  in  laige  Quantities,  is  completely 
answered  by  the  silver  certificate,  which  is  as  easily  canied  as  the  gold  cei- 


tificate  or  any  other  kind  of  paper  money.  - 

There  are  some  who,  while  admitting  the  benefits  of  bimetallism,  object 
to  coinage  at  the  present  ratio.  If  any  are  deceived  by  this  objection,  they 
ought  to  remember  that  there  are  no  bimetallists  who  are  earnestly  endeav¬ 
oring  to  secure  it  at  any  other  ratio  than  10  to  1.  Wre  are  opposed  to  any 
change  in  the  ratio  for  two  reasons— first,  because  a  change  would  produce 
great  injustice,  and,  second,  because,  a  change  in  the  ratio  is  not  necessary, 
A  change  would  produce  injustice  because,  if  effected  in  the  manner  usually 
suggested,  it  would  result  in  an  enormous  contraction  in  the  volume  of  stand¬ 


ard  money. 

If,  for  instance,  it  was  decided  by  international  agreement  to  raise  the 
ratio  throughout  the  world  to  32  to  1,  the  change  might  be  effected  in  any 


one  of  three  ways:  , 

The  silver  dollar  could  be  doubled  in  size,  so  that  the  new  silver  dollar 


would  weigh  thirty-two  times  as  much  as  the  present  gold  dollar;  or  the  pres¬ 
ent  gold  dollar  could  be  reduced  one-half  in  weight,  so  that  the  present  silver 
dollar  would  weigh  thirty-two  times  as  much  as  the  new  gold  dollar;  or  the 
change  could  be  made  by  increasing  the  size  of  the  silver  dollar  and  decreas¬ 
ing  the  size  of  the  gold  dollar  until  the  new  silver  dollar  would  weigh  thirty- 
two  times  as  much  as  the  new  gold  dollar.  Those  who  have  advised  a 
change  in  the  ratio  have  usually  suggested  that  the  silver  dollar  be  doubled. 
If  this  change  were  made  it  would  necessitate  the  recoinage  of  four  billions 
of  silver  into  two  billions  of  dollars.  There  would  be  an  immediate  loss  of 
two  billions  of  dollars  either  to  individuals  or  to  the  Government,  but  this 
would  be  the  least  of  the  injury.  A  shrinkage  of  one-half  in  the  silver 
money  of  the  world  would  mean  a  shrinkage  of  one-fourth  in  the  total 
volume  of  metallic  money.  This  contraction,  by  increasing  the  value  of  the 
dollar,  would  virtually  increase  the  debts  of  the  world  billions  of  dollars, 
and  decrease  still  more  the  value  of  the  property  of  the  world  as  measured  by 
dollars.  Besides  this  immediate  result,  such  a  change  in  the  ratio  would  per¬ 
manently  decrease  the  annual  addition  to  the  world's  supply  of  money,  be¬ 
cause  the  annual  silver  product,  when  coined  into  dollars  twice  as  large, 
would  make  only  half  as  many  dollars. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  would  be  injured  by  a  change  in  the  ratio, 
not  because  they  produce  silver,  but  because  they  own  property  and  owe 
debts,  and  they  cannot  afford  to  thus  decrease  the  value  of  their  property 
or  increase  the  burden  of  their  debts. 

In  1878  Mr.  Carlisle  said:  “Mankind  will  be  fortunate  indeed  if  the  annual 
production  of  gold  and  silver  coin  shall  keep  pace  with  the  annual  increase 
of  population  and  industry.”  I  repeat  this  assertion.  All  of  the  gold  and 
silver  annually  available  for  coinage,  when  converted  into  coin  at  the  present 
ratio,  will  not,  in  my  judgment,  more  than  supply  our  monetary  needs. 

In  supporting  the  act  of  1890,  known  as  the  Sherman  act,  Senator  Sherman, 
on  June  5  of  that  year,  said: 


“Under  the  law  of  February,  1878,  the  purchase  of  $2,000,000  worth  of 
silver  bullion  a  month  has  by  coinage  produced  annually  an  average  of 
nearly  $3,000,000  per  month  for  a  period  of  twelve  years,  but  this  amount, 
in  view  of  the  retirement  of  the  bank  notes,  will  not  increase  our  currency 
in  proportion  to  our  increasing  population.  If  our  present  currency  is  esti¬ 
mated  at  $1,400,000,000,  and  our  population  is  increasing  at  the  ratio  of  3  per 
cent  per  annum,  it  would  require  $42,000,000  increased  circulation  each  year 
to  keep  pabe  with  the  increase  of  population;  but,  as  the  increase  of  popula¬ 
tion  is  accompanied  by  a  still  greater  ratio  of  increase  of  wealth  and  business, 
it  was  thought  that  an  immediate  increase  of  circulation  might  be  obtained 
by  larger  purchases  of  silver  bullion  to  an  amount  sufficient  to  make  good 


the  retirement  of  bank  notes  and  keep  pace  with  the  growth  of  population. 
Assuming  that  $54,000,000  a  year  of  additional  currency  is  needed  upon  this 
basis,  that  amount  is  provided  for  in  this  bill  by  the  issue  of  Treasury  notes 
in  exchange  for  bullion  at  the  market  price.” 

11  the  United  States  then  needed  more  than  forty-two  millions  annually  to 
keep  pace  with  population  and  business,  it  now,  with,  a  larger  population, 
needs  a  still  greater  annual  addition;  and  the  United  States  is  only  one 
Nation  among  many.  Our  opponents  make  no  adequate  provision  for  the 
increasing  monetary  needs  of  the  world. 

In  the  second  place,  a  change  in  the  ratio  is  not  necessary.  Hostile  legis¬ 
lation  has  decreased  the  demand  for  silver  and  lowered  its  price  when 
measured  by  gold,  while  this  same  hostile  legislation,  by  increasing  the 
demand  for  gold,  has  raised  the  value  of  gold  when  measured  by  other 
forms  of  property. 

We  are  told  that  the  restoration  of  bimetallism  would  be  a  hardship  upon 
those  who  have  entered  into  contracts  payable  in  gold  coin,  but  this  is  a 
mistake.  It  will  be  easier  to  obtain  the  gold  with  which  to  meet  a  gold 
contract,  when  most  of  the  people  can  tise  silver,  than  it  is  now,  when  every 
one  is  trying  to  secure  gold. 

The  Chicago  platform  expressly  declares  in  favor  of  such  legislation  as 
may  be  necessary  to  prevent,  for  the  future,  the  demonetization  of  any  kind 
of  legal  tender  money  by  private  contract.  Such  contracts  are  objected  to 
on  the  ground  that  they  are  against  public  policy.  No  one  questions  the 
right  of  Legislatures  to  fix  the  rate  of  interest  which  can  be  collected  by 
law;  there  is  far  more  reason  for  preventing  private  individuals  from  setting 
aside  legal  tender  law.  The  money  which  is  by  law  made  a  legal  tender, 
must,  in  the  course  of  ordinary  business,  be  accepted  by  ninety-nine  out  of 
every  one  hundred  persons.  Why  should  the  one  hundredth  man  be  per¬ 
mitted  to  exempt  himself  from  the  general  rule?  Special  contracts  have  a 
tendency  to  increase  the  demand  for  a  particular  kind  of  money,  and  thus 
force  it  to  a  premium.  Have  not  the  people  a  right  to  say  that  a  comparatively 
few  individuals  shall  not  be  permitted  fo  derange  the  financial  system  of  the 
nation  in  order  to  collect  a  premium  in  case  they  succeed  in  forcing  one 
kind  of  money  to  a  premium? 

There  is  another  argument  to  which  I  ask  your  attention.  Some  of  the 
more  zealous  opponents  of  free  coinage  point  to  the  fact  that  thirteen  months 
must  elapse  between  the  election  and  the  first  regular  session  of  the  next 
Congress,  and  assert  that  during  that  time,  in  case  people  declare  themselves 
in  favor  of  free  coinage,  all  loans  will  be  withdrawn  and  all  mortgages  fore¬ 
closed.  If  these  are  merely  prophecies  indulged  in  by  those  who  have  for¬ 
gotten  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  remind  them 
that  the  President  is  empowered  to  convene  Congress  in  extraordinary 
session  whenever  the  public  good  requires  such  action.  If,  in  November, 
the  people  by  their  ballots  declare  themselves  in  favor  of  the  immediate 
restoration  of  bimetallism,  the  system  can  be  inaugurated  within  a  few 
months. 


If,  however,  the  assertion  that  loans  will  be  withdrawn  and  mortgages 
foreclosed  is  made  to  prevent  such  political  action  as  the  people  may  believe 
to  be  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  their  rights,  then  a  new  and  vital 
issue  is  raised.  Whenever  it  is  necessary  for  the  people  as  a  whole  to  obtain 
consent  from  the  owners  of  money  and  the  changers  of  money  before  they 
can  legislate  upon  financial  questions,  we  shall  have  passed  from  a  dem¬ 
ocracy  to  a  plutocracy.  But  that  time  has  not  yet  arrived  Threats  and 
intimidations  will  be  of  no  avail.  The  people  who,  m  1<<6,  reJ£cted  tie 
doctrine  that  kings  rule  by  right  divine,  will  not,  in  this  generation,  sub¬ 
scribe  to  doctrine  that  money  is  omnipotent.  .  '  .  .  .  . 

Tn  conclusion,  permit  me  to  say  a  word  in  regard  to  international  bimet¬ 
allism  We  are  not  opposed  to  an  international  agreement  looking  to  t 
restoration  of  bimetallism  throughout  the  world.  The  advocates  of  free 
coinage  have  on  all  occasions  shown  their  willingness  to  co-operate  with 

other  nations  in  the  reinstatement  of  silver,  but  the£  not  ^lie^ded 
await  the  pleasure  of  other  governments  when  immediate  lelief  is  needed 
by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  they  further  believe  that  independent 
action  offers  better  assurance  of  international  bimetallism  than  servile  de¬ 
pendence  upon  foreign  aid.  For  more  than  twenty  years  we  have  invited 
the  assistance  of  European  nations,  but  all  progress  m  the  direction  o 
international  bimetallism  has  been  blocked  by  the  opposition  of  those  who 


16 


derive  a  pecuniary  benefit  from  the  appreciation  of  gold.  How  long  must 
we  wait  for  bimetallism  to  be  brought  to  us  by  those  who  profit  by  mono¬ 
metallism  ?  If  the  double  standard  will  bring  benefits  to  our  people,  who 
will  deny  them  the  right  to  enjoy  those  benefits?  If  our  opponents  -would 
admit  the  right,  the  ability  and  ihe  duty  of  our  people  to  act  for  them¬ 
selves  on  all  public  questions  without  the  assistance  and  regardless  of  tile 
washes  of  other  nations,  and  then  propose  the  remedial  legislation  which 
they  consider  sufficient,  we  could  meet  them  in  the  field  of  honorable  debate; 
but,  wrhen  they  assert  that  this  nation  is  helpless  to  protect  the  rights  of 
its  own  citizens,  we  challenge  them  to  submit  the  issue  to  a  people  whose 
patriotism  has  never  been  appealed  to  in  vain. 

We  shall  not  offend  other  nations  wdien  we  declare  the  right  of  the 
American  people  to  govern  themselves,  and,  without  let  or  hindrance  from 
without,  decide  upon  every  question  presented  for  their  consideration.  In 
taking  this  positon,  we  simply  maintain  the  dignity  of  seventy  million, 
citizens  who  are  second  to  none  in  their  capacity  for  self-government. 

The  gold  standard  has  compelled  the  American  people  to  pay  an  ever- 
increasing  tribute  to  the  creditor  nations  of  the  world — a  tribute  which 
no  one  dares  to  defend.  I  assert  that  national  honor  requires  the  United 
States  to  secure  justice  for  all  its  citizens  as  well  as  do  justice  to  all  its- 
creditors.  For  a  people  like  ours,  blest  with  natural  resources  of  surpassing: 
richness,  to  proclaim  themselves  impotent  to  frame  a  financial  system 
suited  to  their  own  needs,  is  humiliating  beyond  the  power  of  language  to 
describe.  We  cannot  enforce  respect  for  our  foreign  policy  so  long  as  we 
confess  ourselves  unable  to  frame  our  own  financial  policy. 

Honest  differences  of  opinion  have  alwrays  existed,  and  ever  will  exist,, 
as  to  the  legislation  best  calculated  to  promote  the  public  weal;  but,  when  it 
is  seriously  asserted  that  this  nation  must  bow  to  the  dictation  of  other 
nations  and  accept  the  policies  which  they  insist  upon,  the  right  of  self- 
government  is  assailed,  and  until  that  question  is  settled  all  other  questions 
are  insignificant. 

Citizens  of  New  York:  I  have  traveled  from  the  centre  of  the  continent 
to  the  seaboard  that  I  might,,  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  campaign,  bring 
you  greeting  from  the  people  of  the  West  and  South  and  assure  you  that 
their  desire  is  not  to  destroy  but  to  build  up.  They  invite  you  to  accept  the 
principles  of  a  living  faith  rather  than  listen  to  those  who  preach  the  gospel 
of  despair  and  advise  endurance  of  the  ills  you  have.  The  advocates  of  free 
coinage  believe  that,  in  striving  to  secure  the  immediate  restoration  of 
bimetallism,  they  are  laboring  in  your  behalf  as  well  as  in  their  own  behalf. 
A  few  of  your  people  may  prosper  under  present  conditions,  but  the  per¬ 
manent  welfare  of  New  York  rests  upon  the  producers  of  wealth.  This 
great  city  is  built  upon  the  commerce  of  the  nation  and  must  suffer  if  that 
commerce  is  impaired.  You  cannot  sell  unless  the  people  have  money  with 
which  to  buy,  and  they  cannot  obtain  the  money  with  which  to  buy  unless 
they  are  able  to  sell  their  products  at  remunerative  prices.  Production  of 
wealth  goes  before  the  exchange  of  wealth;  those  who  create  must  secure 
a  profit  before  they  have  anything  to  share  with  others.  You  cannot  afford 
to  join  the  moneychangers  in  supporting  a  financial  policy  which,  by  destroy¬ 
ing  the  purchasing  power  of  the  products  of  toil,  must  in  the  end  discourage 
the  creation  of  wealth. 

I  ask,  I  expect,  your  co-operation.  It  is  true  that  a  few  of  your  financiers 
would  fashion  a  new  figure— a  figure  representing  Columbia,  her  hands 
bound  fast  with  fetters  of  gold  and  her  face  turned  toward  the  East, 
appealing  for  assistance  to  those  who  live  beyond  the  sea— but  this  figure  can 
never  express  your  idea  of  this  nation.  You  will  rather  turn  for  inspiration 
to  the  heroic  statue  which  guards  the  entrance  to  your  city— a  statue  as, 
patriotic  in  conception  as  it  is  collossal  in  proportion.  It  was  the  gracious 
gift  of  a  sister  Republic  and  stands  upon  a  pedestal  which  was  built  by 
the  American  people.  That  figure— Liberty  enlightening  the  world— is  em¬ 
blematic  of  the  mission  of  our  nation  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  With 
a  Government  which  derives  its  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed, 
secures  to  all  the  people  freedom  of  conscience,  freedom  of  thought  and 
freedom  of  speech,  guarantees  equal  rights  to  all  and  promises  special  priv¬ 
ileges  to  none,  the  United  States  should  be  an  example  in  all  that  is  good  and 
the  leading  spirit  in  every  movement  which  has  for  its  object  the  uplifting 
of  the  human  race. 


